The Rolling Stones vs. Aerosmith

[adnan]

Two very brilliant bands, very similar in style, although Aerosmith have a substantially louder more jazzy blues style, while the Stones incorporate country-style music with blues riffs with simple rock n' roll music. Both frontmen are GREAT(who is better can be argued- and will be for sure- later in the thread).

Both bands pioneered the bluesy rockin' numbers and the bluesy power ballads. While some may dismiss Aerosmith as a cheap imitator, there is no denying the talents of Steven Tyler and Joe Perry, the latter arguably being one of the best Blues guitarists in history. Some prefer Aerosmith, some the Stones.

Who do I choose? The Rolling Stones. Even though- from a personal viewpoint- Aerosmith have made more danceable, enjoyable music overall, the Stones have an arsenal of songs that cannot, and will not be matched, Aerosmith have had at least 3 sub-par albums, the Stones none. The Rolling Stones are the pioneers of rock.

[DirtyDeeds]

The Rolling Stones by 4,507,274,694 miles.

[highvoltage]

The Stones.

[adnan]

Poll added.

[DCGNR]

The Stones Catalog is just too impressive for too long to put Aerosmith in the same class

Can anyone really say they love how Aerosmith sounds these days?

On a different note, given the choice to see one or the other live, I'd probably choose Aerosmith, if that makes any sense

[adnan]

Actually, I can say just that, their last album (Honkin' Bobo) was a VERY good album, it was bluesier than anything they made before and sort of plays like a mixture of sleazy Stones/Aerosmith rock with Chicago Blues.

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

If you claim to have voted for Aerosmith I will attack you verbally.

[adnan]

Don't be so childish about it. This thread will not be any fun without some Aerosmith fans showing up and voicing their opinion, this is a public forum, be more accepting.

Aerosmith are NOT a bad band, songs like "Mama Kin", "Season of Whither", "Draw the Line", "Walk This Way" to be on par with Stones' hits like "Satisfaction", "Honky Tonk Women", etc.

It is songs like "Sympathy for the Devil", "Beast of Burden" and others, that put the Stones in a class of their own.

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

adnan, the thing is, I don't care. I don't care about Aerosmith, I don't care who likes them, but if someone thinks they are better than The Stones I will tell them why they are wrong, and I will be mature about it, like I always am, so don't play that card with me.

[zakk]

I love both bands; but Aerosmith has been weak lately. The Stones new album is good and their history is ten times better than Aerosmith. Just Push Play by Aerosmith is painful to listen to. The worst $15 I have ever spent.

[metallic ko]

The Stones.

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

My sentiments exactly.

[Bucketslash]

Whelp, someone had to post against this crowd mentality, and i guess it's me(for the hell of it)

the thing that seperates the song writing duo of jagger/richards vs. tyler/perry is that tyler/perry get it done under tougher situations a little better

Consider this,Richards is a dedicated rythm guitarist, which means no matter how good he gets he wants to always play rythm,it takes alot of stress off him

Perry meanwhile always plays leads, he has to come up with amazing melodies(unless thier a tyler written ballad), great solos, sing occasionally, and many otherthings

Meanwhile tyler plays guitar better than jagger,plays more instruments, and has a higher vocal range

not only that, but toys in the attic is LEGENDARY, right up there with afd, nevermind, led zep 4, etc. the rolling stones are great for singles, but no album has touched the perfection of toys, and walk this way, is a decent answer to sympathy in many ways, mainly because both ripping ripping solos are incredible. The only thing i wish is that sypathy's solo wasn't the exception, Aerosmith on the other hand,

a.have some of the greatest live albums to date, and the way tyler sings the old his with a new more raw voice stomps on jagger,who's voice barely changed since recording, like bootleg,when his voice was amazing and solid

b.have adopted thier style to changing music(though they promise a newer heavier album for the next release),but where as the stones biggest mistake was to go from a blues to a blues based(listen to hot licks, it's one of thier greatest albums, and completely blues), but perry has always supported the ballady playing with some of his greatest solos to date(cept i don't wanna miss,)

but thats not to say i don't like the stones, I LOVE THE STONES.......

just i think aerosmith's ability to change music for the times, amazing shows, and the fact that aerosmith is competeing with a band 10 years older makes them a more memmorable band

i mean, if aerosmith started 10 years earlier and the stones started in the 70's who would be better/more influential now?

[JennaSide]

Personally, I'm going to have to go with Aerosmith on this one.... don't hurt me

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

Whelp, someone had to post against this crowd mentality, and i guess it's me(for the hell of it)

Welcome to the jungle.

Consider this,Richards is a dedicated rythm guitarist, which means no matter how good he gets he wants to always play rythm,it takes alot of stress off him

Perry meanwhile always plays leads, he has to come up with amazing melodies(unless thier a tyler written ballad), great solos, sing occasionally, and many otherthings

Meanwhile tyler plays guitar better than jagger,plays more instruments, and has a higher vocal range

All good points, but points that still allow you to prefer Richards' playing, and to prefer Jagger's vocals, so that although what they are doing is technically more difficult, you can enjoy The Stones more so.

not only that, but toys in the attic is LEGENDARY, right up there with afd, nevermind, led zep 4, etc. the rolling stones are great for singles, but no album has touched the perfection of toys, and walk this way, is a decent answer to sympathy in many ways, mainly because both ripping ripping solos are incredible. The only thing i wish is that sypathy's solo wasn't the exception, Aerosmith on the other hand,

I think this is where you lose it. Toys In The Attic is a great and widely renowned effort indeed, but to say that The Stones never released an album on that level, or to say they were only great for singles? That's not right. The Rolling Stones released several masterpieces, from Beggar's Banquet in 1968 to Exile On Main St. they had a streak that few have come remotely close to, and Aerosmith could only envy. You don't think Sticky Fingers is as "perfect" as Toys In The Attic? Please. The same could be said for Exile. Let's look at a typical "100" list of rock albums, VH1's in this case. This is compiled by critics and bigwigs and whoevers, and they do a good enough job of representing public opinion. Exile On Main St. places 12th, and where's Aerosmith? Nowhere to be found. Maybe Toys is greater to you, but the public does not see it that way. "Walk This Way" answers to "Sympathy For The Devil"? Sure, it's a classic, but wasn't your point that Aerosmith were greater for albums?

a.have some of the greatest live albums to date, and the way tyler sings the old his with a new more raw voice stomps on jagger,who's voice barely changed since recording, like bootleg,when his voice was amazing and solid

So Jagger's voice hasn't changed a bit, and that's a bad thing? And have you heard Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out? That's a great live album.

b.have adopted thier style to changing music(though they promise a newer heavier album for the next release),but where as the stones biggest mistake was to go from a blues to a blues based(listen to hot licks, it's one of thier greatest albums, and completely blues), but perry has always supported the ballady playing with some of his greatest solos to date(cept i don't wanna miss,)

First of all Hot Licks was a compilation and not a proper album. The Rolling Stones never let go of The Blues, and they were never bonded by it either. From their earliest days they have played a hybrid of Chuck Berry style Rn'R and Chicago Blues with their own unique additives. But The Stones have changed, in the early 70's they moved more towards the vein of Hard Rock, and it resulted in their most acclaimed albums. In the late 70's, they adapted to Disco and Punk with their hugely successful Some Girls album. Even on 1997's Bridges To Babylon they were adding new flavors with production by The Dust Brothers.

just i think aerosmith's ability to change music for the times, amazing shows, and the fact that aerosmith is competeing with a band 10 years older makes them a more memmorable band

i mean, if aerosmith started 10 years earlier and the stones started in the 70's who would be better/more influential now?

Without the influence of The Rolling Stones, there's no telling what Aerosmith would have sounded like or if they even would have existed.

[axl04]

I am a fan of the blues. And Aerosmith are definately the more blues based band. There version of Baby Please Don't Go is absolutely excellent. No doubt the Stones are a great band but what pushs Aerosmith over the top is Steven Tyler. A way more versatile singer then Jagger, who sounds the same studio as live. And The Stones aresimply living of there past now. Bigger Bang sucked. Honkin' On Bobo is one of my favourites and a very diverse record.

I like both but Aerosmith just seem to convey more power through there music...at least for me. I would take Rag Doll of Satisfaction. Why? Rag Doll is a hell of a lot more fun than Satasfaction thats why.

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

I am a fan of the blues. And Aerosmith are definately the more blues based band.

That's just not true.

[axl04]

I am a fan of the blues. And Aerosmith are definately the more blues based band.

That's just not true.

Yes all rock music came from Blues. Yes the stones were/are blues based. Which does it show more in? In my opinion Aerosmith. Especially because they stayed consistant to there roots yet still evolved. That whole disco era of the Stones is pretty far removed from the blues

Edited April 29, 2006 by axl04

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

I am a fan of the blues. And Aerosmith are definately the more blues based band.

That's just not true.

Yes all rock music came from Blues. Yes the stones were/are blues based. Which does it show more in? In my opinion Aerosmith. Especially because they stayed consistant to there roots yet still evolved. That whole disco era of the Stones is pretty far removed from the blues

You could say that if all you heard was the singles, but Some Girls was mostly built around the same old formula. What about 80's Pump era Aerosmith? "Janie's Got A Gun" ain't The Blues.

The Rolling Stones were the first white Rock group to do Chicago Blues and make it their own, they have covered Blues classics throughout their career. That's just bullshit, I'm sorry but it is. They were the original "Blues-Based" rock band, although I despise that term.

[axl04]

I am a fan of the blues. And Aerosmith are definately the more blues based band.

That's just not true.

Yes all rock music came from Blues. Yes the stones were/are blues based. Which does it show more in? In my opinion Aerosmith. Especially because they stayed consistant to there roots yet still evolved. That whole disco era of the Stones is pretty far removed from the blues

You could say that if all you heard was the singles, but Some Girls was mostly built around the same old formula. What about 80's Pump era Aerosmith? "Janie's Got A Gun" ain't The Blues.

The Rolling Stones were the first white Rock group to do Chicago Blues and make it their own, they have covered Blues classics throughout their career. That's just bullshit, I'm sorry but it is. They were the original "Blues-Based" rock band, although I despise that term.

Dude I already admitted the Stones were "the" blues rock band. And the "Janie" point is valid. Aerosmith has gone full circle. The Stones haven't (yet).

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

Aerosmith has gone full circle. The Stones haven't (yet).

Huh? Just explain that to me.

[axl04]

Aerosmith has gone full circle. The Stones haven't (yet).

Huh? Just explain that to me.

Aerosmiths gone back to how they started. Playing blues rock. The stones are still off doing something new and different. By know means is this bad but you wanted to know why I see more blues in the one than the other.

Or maybe I'm just ignorant

Edited April 29, 2006 by axl04

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

Aerosmith has gone full circle. The Stones haven't (yet).

Huh? Just explain that to me.

Aerosmiths gone back to how they started. Playing blues rock. The stones are still off doing something new and different. By know means is this band but you wanted to know why I see more blues in the one than the other.

Or maybe I'm just ignorant

Well, I think you are wrong. Especially since A Bigger Bang has been widely hailed as a return to classic-Stones style Blues-rock. And certain tracks like "Back Of My Hand" are straight ahead Blues as well.

[axl04]

Aerosmith has gone full circle. The Stones haven't (yet).

Huh? Just explain that to me.

Aerosmiths gone back to how they started. Playing blues rock. The stones are still off doing something new and different. By know means is this band but you wanted to know why I see more blues in the one than the other.

Or maybe I'm just ignorant

Well, I think you are wrong. Especially since A Bigger Bang has been widely hailed as a return to classic-Stones style Blues-rock. And certain tracks like "Back Of My Hand" are straight ahead Blues as well.

Maybe. I heard it and wasn't impressed. It could stem from me prefering Tyler vocally to Jagger

[Lithium]

Null vote. I love both bands equally and I think Tyler/Perry is as brilliant as Jagger/Richards.